Workplace Deviance Counterproductive and Productive Behaviors Defining

¶ … Workplace Deviance

Counterproductive and Productive Behaviors

Defining Counterproductive and Productive Work Behavior

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is defined by an employee's actions causing harm to either a coworker or their employer (reviewed by Krischer, Penney, and Hunter, 2010). The forms of CWB can vary considerably, from arguing with or ignoring coworkers, damaging equipment to sabotage the work of others, and reducing the amount of time spent at work. Researchers have proposed a number of theories that attempt to explain the psychological roots of CWB and these include an employee reacting emotionally to a perceived negative workplace event or condition, or simply seeking a desired outcome (manipulation).

Krischer, Penney, and Hunter (2010) argue that organizational psychology research has focused almost exclusively on an employee's affective response to negative events, to the exclusion of internal or instrumental motivations. Instrumental motivations for engaging in CWB could arise from an employee's attempts to cope with a stressful situation at work, by something as simple as minimizing the amount of time spent at work.

The theoretical polar opposite of CWB is voluntary cooperative behavior above and beyond what's normally required by an employee-employer contract (reviewed by Koster and Sanders, 2006). A common term used to describe this type of behavior is organizational citizen behavior (OCB). The outcome of such behavior has an overall positive effect on the organization and character traits such as altruism and conscientiousness have been proposed as the primary motivations (reviewed in Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).

Rather than OCB arising solely out of personal ethics, Koster and Sanders (2006) argued that an OCB employee may expect reciprocity from others within the organization, whether from supervisors or coworkers. The interpersonal structure thus created between an OCB employee and other members of the organization has been termed organizational solidarity (Koster and Sanders, 2006). In contrast to the reciprocity theory of OCB, or in combination with it, Vigoda-Gadot (2006) argued that OCB can arise out of workplace pressures and expectations that can cross the line into abusive and coercive management styles, which drive the employee to go beyond what is required. In these situations OCB would be compulsory, rather than voluntary. Together, these theories suggest that the psychological factors precipitating OCB may be just as complex as those for CWB.

The Relationship between OCB and CWB

The ability to define OCB or CWB is not always easy, because the context must be understood before a determination of whether an employee's behavior is productive or counterproductive. For example, Krischer, Penney, and Hunter (2010) argue that employees who withdraw in order to limit exposure to a stressful situation at work may actually be productive over the long run. Such coping strategies could mitigate potential burnout and therefore help minimize the costs associated with a high employee turnover rate.

Krischer, Penney, and Hunter (2010) also discuss the differences between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping and how the former is more commonly seen as productive. An example of problem-focused coping would be an employee limiting distractions, such as coworker interactions (withdrawal), in order to cope with a more demanding workload. From an organizational standpoint this would be perceived as productive behavior, even though it involves withdrawal and possibly ignoring coworker interactions. Emotion-focused coping strategies often result in CWB, but in situations that the employee has little or no control over emotion-focused coping strategies may turn out to be productive because employee exhaustion and turnover may be reduced.

Other behaviors that are normally perceived as counterproductive could actually be productive under the following conditions (Krischer, Penney, and Hunter, 2010):

Slowing productivity to cope with a stressor, thus preserving work quality and safety

Leaving work early or taking a long lunch can help an employee escape a significant stressor long enough to allow the employee to recover and be more productive upon return

Doing work incorrectly or ignoring procedures can help balance an employee's perceptions of workplace injustice, reduce emotional exhaustion, and prevent more overt and destructive behaviors

The Cost of CWB

CWB behaviors, like theft, fraud, vandalism, sabotage, or absenteeism are common, with between 33 and 75% of all employees having engaged in such behaviors (reviewed by Bennett and Robinson, 2000). Drug use is prevalent, sexual harassment was experienced by 42% of the women surveyed, and 7% of employees reported being threatened with physical harm. The annual cost of CWB to organizations may be as high as 200 billion dollars.

Interventions